<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AlphaDelta219:
its most likely video from an older build. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except in the video I know in one of the left corner in game cutscenes the guy went against the wall had an XMX. And the helicopters fot the JSF was AH-80 Blackfoot which was made the JSF Gunship when the XMX was taken out.

Except in the video I know in one of the left corner in game cutscenes the guy went against the wall had an XMX. And the helicopters fot the JSF was AH-80 Blackfoot which was made the JSF Gunship when the XMX was taken out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

THEN... IS XMX ALMOST GET BACK??
ALMOST TRUE?? PLEASE....

crazy_monnkey

08-22-2008, 10:47 PM

NO! THE XM8 is <span class="ev_code_RED">DEAD</span>, just live with it.

And to advoid flame ar it was just a joke </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
i know you love the XM8 DAFOC
you-&gt; http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif &lt;-XM8
no hard feelings

WhiteKnight77

08-22-2008, 11:44 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Reconning_GRSC6:
The devs have to say something about this </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't bet the farm on it.

crazy_monnkey

08-22-2008, 11:50 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WhiteKnight77:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Reconning_GRSC6:
The devs have to say something about this </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't bet the farm on it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Dont do it Johny!

baseball2k27

08-23-2008, 12:01 AM

haha, it is more futuristic then the scar, i would like it

LostSplinter

08-23-2008, 02:29 AM

Maybe this is why the game was pushed back another month. DAFOC, what have you done?! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

BakyardShniper

08-23-2008, 04:01 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LostSplinter:
Maybe this is why the game was pushed back another month. DAFOC, what have you done?! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by N3V30:
I call dibs on killing DAFOC for delaying the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
not if i kill you first......... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

DAFOC

08-23-2008, 11:34 AM

You do relize that hurt my feelings http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
Just kidding

Famousguy

08-23-2008, 07:41 PM

I don't under stand what the problem is, the XM8 is a great gun (and stop calling it the XM8 once it becomes active duty it'll be the M8), it's got a pretty descent caliber for it's gun, it has automatic, three shot burst, and single shot, and it's pretty lightweight. Each clip has 30 rounds in it, if your using three shot burst or single shot you wont have to reload all the time, and we've frozen it, buried it, whacked it against trees, and it still worked, it also uses state of the art optics systems which uses a laser system placed inside the scope which makes it the ultimate in point and shoot, no more lining up the two iron sights any more! and one more thing, it's not like the AK74 is any better.

DAFOC

08-23-2008, 07:53 PM

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Reconning_GRSC6

08-23-2008, 08:05 PM

Yeah but it melts the barrel making it useless.

Famousguy

08-23-2008, 08:15 PM

What? what melts the barrel, the laser? they don't use a heat transfering laser idiot, and the gun would stop firing if it overheated, not keep going until the barrel melted, and the gun would have to be so hot that the user would probably know due to the heat of it or if their gloves caught on fire lol

Pyrrhus0fEpirs

08-23-2008, 08:17 PM

The barrel does not melt because, unlike what most people think, the XM8 is not ALL plastic. Anything that could be plastic was. The barrel is still metal, meaning it DOESN'T melt. The hand guard melted in early tests in Iraq but that has been since solved. On another note the XM8 is in no way fragile, like Famousguy said its been frozen, heated, buried, thrown, and hit and it still kept kicking.

Reconning_GRSC6

08-23-2008, 08:20 PM

Thats what I heard from the other guys.

crazy_monnkey

08-23-2008, 08:22 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pyrrhus0fEpirs:
The barrel does not melt because, unlike what most people think, the XM8 is not ALL plastic. Anything that could be plastic was. The barrel is still metal, meaning it DOESN'T melt. The hand guard melted in early tests in Iraq but that has been since solved. On another note the XM8 is in no way fragile, like Famousguy said its been frozen, heated, buried, thrown, and hit and it still kept kicking. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
yes it has...... but so has the scar

DAFOC

08-23-2008, 08:24 PM

In a test i think last year the SCAR, XM8, HK 407??? not looking up at this moment and M4 had a dest 6,000 round test.
Best in Dust enivirorment
1.XM8
2.SCAR
3.HK
4.M4

crazy_monnkey

08-23-2008, 08:32 PM

but it doesnt have a version that fires anything other than a 5.56 round

Reconning_GRSC6

08-23-2008, 08:42 PM

BTW 5.56 rounds sucks depending if you are using a FMJ or JHP it will take up to 3 or 4 shots to take out someone but a 6.8 or 7.62 takes only one.

DAFOC

08-23-2008, 08:43 PM

Yeah in my WWIII book I have the XM8 or DAR-6 upgraded to the 6.5 Grendel Round

Reconning_GRSC6

08-23-2008, 08:45 PM

Good, hey why do you love the M8 so much

DAFOC

08-23-2008, 08:49 PM

I guess its because Ive studied it ever sense I saw the ARC3 on the FFoW Website
And I believe with some small improvments like a better grip and a better round it could be a great replacement. Exspecially in an dust area like Iraq and Afgahnastan

WhiteKnight77

08-23-2008, 08:51 PM

This is a quote by a former instructor at the Kennedy Special Warfare Center:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Here is how it works. First Special Ops adopts a weapon or idea. I do not mean in a limited use fashion, but on a grand scale. Then in 5-7 years the rest of the military does likewise.

Special Ops has begun their adoption of a larger caliber round. We started to receive and employ 6.8 uppers on our weapons last year. And every branch - except the Air Force, is begining the process. The key is when the Army Special Ops comes on line as they have the most people. It is going to happen. The Army has pretty much killed the XM8 program out of caliber alone. There is also another major design issue at fault, but it is pretty much dead.

You can slap the M-4 if you want, but operators had their chance and still preferred the design. We didn't want another weapons system, we wanted the M4 in 6.8. As I said above, we have assault versions of the 7.62 round and it is just too much when you are trying to work close.

Also H&K has some good ideas, but they have proven to be crap for us once the design leaves the table. By crap I mean H&K is great at building a weapon system for a single purpose, but not something that goes from the jungle, to the desert, to the city, to the ocean in one fell swoop. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is another quote from him about the weapon they have been using of late:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
To date, no operator I know of has seen a weapons platform on the table as well thought out as the SCAR. The M4 is a great weapon system and the 6.8 uppers on our M4s make a respectable killing tool. But other matters of functionality on the SCAR besides caliber show how dated the cosmetics are on the M4 series. Ever tried to put an M4 into action in a hurry while in a moving vehicle with other operators inside? Even with no on in the seat beside you in the back? Don't even think about having a supressor. The SCAR stock retracts AND ALSO folds sideways greatly reducing the size. With 90% common parts among the 3 calibers in the SCAR system across 3 systems composing the SCAR family, I personally find it with no other contender. There is a good reason FN was initially granted an IDIQ contract by USASOC. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Games using the XM8 are just way off the point nowadays.

Reconning_GRSC6

08-23-2008, 08:51 PM

Im sorry man but I dont really like the M8 I dunno why but I like the ACR and the SCAR better. I feel in love with ACR once I saw it.

Patriot93

08-23-2008, 11:33 PM

Lol Recon ya got to love the ACR. Once I saw that, I liked it more than the XM8, which used to be my favorite rifle. But seriously, the SCAR is fine, maybe not our favorite but it's fine.

Famousguy

08-24-2008, 10:09 AM

I never said the SCAR isn't a good rifle, but it's only used by special forces, the marines are still using m16s which we've had since vietnam, and M4s which are pretty much just a m16 upgrade, the XM8 is a good gun, and no offense, but don't say a gun is the best just because it looks the coolest or you like it in your favorite video game, cause seriously, the M8 is a good gun, and the scar is equally good, but the M8 is more marine based, and like Dafoc said, it's the best in a dusty environment which makes it the best gun for Iraq right now, and I have no doubt that there will be a battleground in the middle east, due to the fact that it is a critical strategic point that allows access to all of the eastern continents, (Europe, Asia, Africa), and by the way, Tom Clancy doesn't actually make the games, the only game based off him was rainbow six, and the rest he just allowed Ubisoft to put his name on it so that they could drag out more Clancy fans, so stop acting like everything in here has to be realistic

DAFOC

08-24-2008, 10:20 AM

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif
The SCAR is good to I ust think the XM8 would be better

Patriot93

08-24-2008, 12:03 PM

Wait hows the XM8 more Marine based?

WhiteKnight77

08-24-2008, 12:14 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Famousguy:
I never said the SCAR isn't a good rifle, but it's only used by special forces, the marines are still using m16s which we've had since vietnam, and M4s which are pretty much just a m16 upgrade, the XM8 is a good gun, and no offense, but don't say a gun is the best just because it looks the coolest or you like it in your favorite video game, cause seriously, the M8 is a good gun, and the scar is equally good, but the M8 is more marine based, and like Dafoc said, it's the best in a dusty environment which makes it the best gun for Iraq right now, and I have no doubt that there will be a battleground in the middle east, due to the fact that it is a critical strategic point that allows access to all of the eastern continents, (Europe, Asia, Africa), and by the way, Tom Clancy doesn't actually make the games, the only game based off him was rainbow six, and the rest he just allowed Ubisoft to put his name on it so that they could drag out more Clancy fans, so stop acting like everything in here has to be realistic </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As far as I have heard, the Marines have never professed an interest in the XM8. Matter of fact, the Marines have said that they will stay with the M16A4 even after the Army finally does switch weapons, whichever it may be.

Unless you have been in on the testing of weapons in the military (like the above quoted GB instructor), you can't say for certain what is or isn't a good weapon. How something acts in a dusty enviorment (Re. that video quoted elsewhere in this thread) is just one of the tests.

Clancy owned RSE when Rainbow Six was developed and published (Clancy had to be forced to write the book). Ghost Recon was started before RSE was sold to Ubisoft. As for the other TC games, you are right. They are just branded TC and not based on anything he did just like GR.

Patriot93

08-24-2008, 01:18 PM

This is the only pic I've ever seen with a Marine holding an XM8.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:20059114333SYMPOSIUMXM8MARINE.jpg

Oh and the Marines are acually starting to switch to the M4 for now, or at least until something better comes along. The moment one of their M16A4s wear out, they replace it with an M4. Also, all officers use M4s now.

WhiteKnight77

08-24-2008, 05:04 PM

Check it out from the source, M4A1 delivers flexible firepower to Marines (http://www.marines.mil/units/mciwest/mcasmiramar/Pages/2004/M4A1%20delivers%20flexible%20firepower%20to%20Mari nes.aspx) and NEW ASSIGNMENT RATIONALE FOR INDIVIDUAL WEAPONS (http://www.marines.mil/news/messages/Pages/2007/Messagesfinal4.aspx)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">UNCLAS 211910Z JUN 07
CMC WASHINGTON DC(UC)
MARADMIN 378/07
MSGID/GENADMIN/CMC WASHINGTON DC CDI/TFSD//
SUBJ/NEW ASSIGNMENT RATIONALE FOR INDIVIDUAL WEAPONS//
REF/A/MSGIDhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifOC/MROC/DM 10-2006//
REF/B/DOC/MROC/DM 46-2006//
AMPN/REF (A) IS MROC DECISION MEMORANDUM DATED 28 FEB 06.
MPN/REF (B) IS MROC DECISION MEMORANDUM DATED 15 SEP 06.
POC/C.C.CHEEK/GS-14/C-03/LOC: DC CDI TFSD QUANTICO/TEL:
DSN 278-6086/TEL: COML (703)784-6086/TEL: FAX DSN 278-6072/
P.A.BECKETT/LTCOL/C-18/LOC: DC CDI FMID QUANTICO/DSN 278-6182/
TEL: COML (703)784-6182//
GENTEXT/REMARKS/THIS MESSAGE IS RELATED TO
INDIVIDUAL WEAPON ASSIGNMENTS AS A RESULT OF THE MARINE CORPS
EQUIPMENT REVIEW GROUP (MCERG). 1. PURPOSE. TO CLARIFY THE NEW
INDIVIDUAL WEAPON ASSIGNMENT POLICY AND TO INFORM ALL COMMANDS OF
SUBSEQUENT MODIFICATIONS TO TO/E'S THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE.
2. BACKGROUND. DURING 2005 DC, CDI IN COORDINATION WITH THE
ADVOCATES AND MARFORS CONDUCTED A MCERG IN AN EFFORT TO ENSURE THAT
ALL EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS WERE PROPERLY IDENTIFIED AND DOCUMENTED.
PHASE ONE OF THE REVIEW FOCUSED ON INDIVIDUAL EQUIPMENT FOR MARINES
TO INCLUDE INDIVIDUAL"T/O" WEAPONS.
THE REVIEW, GUIDED BY THE CMC CHARTER AND DC, CDI COMMANDER'S
INTENT, TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION LESSONS LEARNED ALONG WITH KNOWLEDGE
OF NEW WEAPON TECHNOLOGY BEING FIELDED. AS A RESULT, NEW INDIVIDUAL
WEAPONS ASSIGNMENT POLICIES WERE DEVELOPED, VALIDATED, AND APPROVED
BY THE MARINE REQUIREMENTS OVERSIGHT COUNCIL (MROC) FOR
IMPLEMENTATION. MROC DECISION MEMORANDUM
46-2006 VALIDATED THE APPROVED ACQUISITION OBJECTIVES PRE 202K.
THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTS THESE NEW ASSIGNMENT POLICIES AND LAYS OUT
ASSOCIATED IMPLEMENTATION PLANS.
3. THE INDIVIDUAL REQUIREMENT FOR EACH WEAPON IS DETERMINED BY THE
WEAPONS CODE WHICH IS ASSIGNED TO EACH BILLET ON A UNIT'S T/O.
EACH WEAPONS CODE IS ASSOCIATED TO A SPECIFIC WEAPON. WEAPONS CODES
FOR EACH UIC ARE AUTOMATICALLY CALCULATED WITHIN THE TOTAL FORCE
STRUCTURE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (TFSMS) AND THE QTY IS PLACED IN THE
INDIVIDUAL (IND) COLUMN OF THE T/E UNDER THE RESPECTIVE TAMCN. MANY
WEAPONS WILL ALSO HAVE ORGANIZATIONAL QTYS AS WELL; HOWEVER, THESE
ASSIGNMENT POLICIES ONLY REFER TO THE IND PORTION OF A UNIT'S
REQUIREMENT. THIS NEW DETERMINATION OF T/O WEAPONS REQUIREMENTS HAS
CURRENTLY BEEN APPLIED TO THE T/O(S) OF THE OPERATING FORCES. THE
M16A2 (E14412M) REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN DELETED FROM TO/E(S) IN TFSMS
AND REPLACED WITH THE M16A4 (E1442M).
THE FOLLOWING WEAPONS CODES ARE ASSIGNED:
3.A. BILLET WEAPONS CODE"M" NOW REFERS TO THE M16A4 (E14422M).
UNITS SHOULD MAINTAIN ALL M16A2 RIFLES UNTIL THEY ARE FIELDED THE
M16A4.
3.B. BILLET WEAPONS CODE"P" STILL REFERS TO THE 9MM PISTOL
(E12502M).
3.C. BILLET WEAPONS CODE"C" NOW REFERS TO THE M4 CARBINE (MWS)
(E01957M).
3.D. BILLET WEAPONS CODE"A" STILL REFERS TO THE AUTOMATIC RIFLE
(E09607M), SQUAD AUTOMATIC WEAPON (SAW).
3.E. THE M4A1 CARBINE (E01907M) IS NOW LISTED AS A UNIT
ORGANIZATIONAL REQUIREMENT.
4. THE SHORT TERM AFFECT OF CONVERTING TO THESE NEW WEAPONS CODES
IS AS FOLLOWS:
4.A. PISTOLS IN THE PAST WERE ASSIGNED TO ALL MARINE OFFICERS,
SNCOS, AND NAVY BILLETS. THE NEW ASSIGNMENT POLICY ASSIGNS PISTOLS
TO MARINE COLONELS AND ABOVE, NAVY OFFICERS, AND NAVY
E6 AND ABOVE ONLY.
4.B. SERVICE RIFLES (M16) IN THE PAST WERE ASSIGNED TO MARINE
E5 AND BELOW. THE SERVICE RIFLE WILL STILL BE ASSIGNED THE SAME WITH
FEW EXCEPTIONS.
4.C. THE M4 CARBINE WAS PREVIOUSLY ASSIGNED ONLY TO SPECIFIC UNITS.
THE NEW ASSIGNMENT POLICY ASSIGNS THE CARBINE TO MARINE LT THROUGH
LTCOL, WO/CWO, SNCOS, NAVY E5 AND BELOW, AND LIMITED EQUIPMENT
VEHICLE OPERATORS.
4.D. AUTOMATIC RIFLE ASSIGNMENTS DID NOT CHANGE.
4.E. BECAUSE CURRENT PROCURMENT AND FIELDING PLANS FOR THE M16A4S
AND M4S ARE BASED ON PREVIOUS T/O REQUIREMENTS, IT WAS NOT FEASIBLE
TO STOP THIS PROCESS MID STREAM. IN ORDER TO EFFECTIVELY SUPPORT
MARINE OPERATING FORCES WITH NEW T/O WEAPON REQUIREMENTS, NEW
PROCUREMENT AND FIELDING PLANS ARE BEING DEVELOPED. WHILE IN THIS
TRANSITION PERIOD, WE MUST GUARD AGAINST ANY DEGREDATION IN THE
OPERATING FORCES CAPABILITY. NO ORGANIZATION SHALL DISPOSE OF
WEAPONS UNTIL THEIR REPLACEMENT WEAPONS HAVE BEEN FULLY FIELDED.
5. THE M9 PISTOL QUANTITIES HAVE BEEN REDUCED SIGNIFICANTLY WITHIN
THE OPERATING FORCES. THE M16A2 HAS BEEN DELETED FROM ALL UNIT
TO/E(S). THE M16A4 REPLACEMENT HAS ALREADY STARTED TO BE FIELDED.
UNITS ARE AUTHORIZED TO RETAIN M16A2S IN EXCESS TO SUPPORT
REQUIREMENTS UNTIL ALL M16A4S ARE RECEIVED. UNITS WILL REQUEST
DISPOSITION INSTRUCTIONS FOR EXCESS M16A2 RIFLES AND M9 PISTOLS UPON
BEING FULLY FIELDED ALL REPLACEMENT WEAPONS. IT IS ANTICIPATED SOME
UNITS WILL REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PISTOLS TO BE HELD AS AN
ORGANIZATIONAL REQUIREMENT IN ADDITION TO THEIR INDIVIDUAL QTY(S).
PISTOL REQUIREMENTS WILL BE ASSESSED DURING AAO VALIDATION IN FY07
AND FY08 AND FURTHER GUIDANCE PASSED VIA SEPCOR.
6. IMPLEMENTATION OF CHANGES WITHIN TFSMS WILL BE APPLIED IN THREE
PHASES:
6.A. PHASE 1. APPLICATION AND VALIDATION OF NEW WEAPONS CODES FOR
THE OPERATING FORCES.
6.B. PHASE 2. APPLICATION AND VALIDATION OF NEW WEAPONS CODES FOR
THE SUPPORTING ESTABLISHMENT.
6.C. PHASE 3. TFSMS VALIDATION, CORRECTION, AND UPDATE.
6.D. IT IS UNDERSTOOD AS A RESULT OF THIS EFFORT THE CHANGE IN
REQUIREMENTS WILL HAVE OTHER DOTMLPF IMPACTS SPECIFICALLY IN THE
AREAS OF FACILITIES AND TRAINING REQUIREMENTS (ANNUAL WEAPONS
QUALIFICATIONS). DC, CDI WILL BE CONDUCTING AN ASSESSMENT OF THESE
IMPACTS IN COORDINATION WITH THE OPERATING FORCES, SUPPORTING
ESTABLISHMENT, DC, PP&O, DC, I&L, TECOM, AND MCSC. THE RESULT OF
THIS ASSESSMNET WILL BE PUBLISHED VIA NAVAL MSG.
7. QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE ABOVE POLICY AND PROCEDURES CAN BE
DIRECTED TO THE MSG POC.// </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is message relates to who gets issued what weapon, the M4 or the M16.

Oh, one other thing, I am an ex Marine.

Patriot93

08-24-2008, 05:19 PM

Oh ok, my bad dude. So are the Marines are keeping the M16A4 for the long run? The reason I thought they where getting M4s was because some officers are trading their M16s for it. Plus I just heard from word of mouth.

When I was going to buy a M16A4 cuz I'm a Marine junky, the guy said they where switching anyways so get the M4 instaed.

But I'll take your word cuz you would know since your a former Marine. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

It's probably a good thing if they are keeping it since it has more killing power. Oh and thanks for serving our country. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

WhiteKnight77

08-24-2008, 07:18 PM

The M4 and the M16 fire the same round. The length of the barrel determines velocity, the longer the barrel, the faster the round travels. Also, for CQB, a shorter weapon is faster to aim over a longer weapon. Outside of the above posted message, those doing room clearing will more than likely have the M4. Even if I had gone to war as a crew chief, I would have carried an M16 (of the A1 variety) along with having 2 M2s along. Oh, I have been out for 22 years now. The reason why I know about the weapons is I kinda keep track of what is being used. I sure will miss the Phrog when they are all gone.

Patriot93

08-24-2008, 10:24 PM

Ok I got ya. Like you said, the moment they shortened the barrel, the bullet became less effective because it doesn't break up as much when it hits the target. Then again though, alot of engagements aren't really out that far but it's best to be prepared. So when you say room clearing, do you mean just some regular infantry storming city buildings?

Got to love the Marine/military tech.

Reconning_GRSC6

08-24-2008, 10:26 PM

Hey pat why do u want to join my beloved Corps

Patriot93

08-24-2008, 10:47 PM

Too many reasons to count my friend. I feel it's what God intended me to do.

Reconning_GRSC6

08-24-2008, 10:55 PM

OMG Thats what I believe too. I do it for the adventure, action, helping people, improving myself and etc. Pat I really have to meet you when we are Marines

dynex811

08-24-2008, 11:02 PM

Awww now I feel all left out.

Reconning_GRSC6

08-24-2008, 11:04 PM

If you join the Marines you can then be part of our gang

Jay2o2008

08-24-2008, 11:04 PM

wats all this about marines? no takes for the airbourne?

Reconning_GRSC6

08-24-2008, 11:08 PM

Airbourne?! DO U MEAN MARINE AIRBOURNE!? Nah they are great but theres something special about the Marines. I cant explain it maybe Pat can help me out

dynex811

08-24-2008, 11:08 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Reconning_GRSC6:
If you join the Marines you can then be part of our gang </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Lol no thanks. I'd either go for Air Force or Army. National Guard has been appealing to me lately also.

Marines are just to insane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif But if I do go Army maybe we could get paired in a joint operation http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Jay2o2008

08-24-2008, 11:15 PM

yeah well im gna join tha royal marines so screw all of u
theyre jus like marines but theyre royal http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Reconning_GRSC6

08-24-2008, 11:27 PM

Fine at least we are not loners

Patriot93

08-24-2008, 11:49 PM

lol. Dynex Don't join the Chair Force. I think what makes the Marines so appealing is the overall culture/ethnics of it, the beliefs they have, the honor that comes with it, and the fighting style that they use. Also you know when you join that your going to be doing something that directly serves your country for the greater good. Plus the bond you form with your squad mates is something that you can never forget

It's just a combonation of so many things that it's hard to put into words. Ya Recon, we have to meet. But Dynex, if you join the Army maybe well see you in some middle Eastern city or something.

Reconning_GRSC6

08-24-2008, 11:53 PM

I feel like crying man it was spot on. Hey the AF aint too bad espcially when things get a little hairy

Patriot93

08-24-2008, 11:54 PM

lol yeah, every branch of the armed forces should be honored.

Reconning_GRSC6

08-24-2008, 11:55 PM

The Spec Op guys deserves the most.

Patriot93

08-24-2008, 11:59 PM

Ya but all should be respected equally to. They all do their part. But remember that the ones we truly want to remember are those who payed the ultamite sacrifice for their country and families they loved and held so dear. they are the true heroes that we have in this world today.

Reconning_GRSC6

08-25-2008, 12:09 AM

Hell yeah, I remebered I saw a photo of a Marine funeral and his kids were crying that touched me man. I realize those families are heroes too letting their kids and fight

Patriot93

08-25-2008, 12:12 AM

Amen to that. lol wow this thread really shot off track. But whatever, there's like ten of this same thread anyways.lol

Reconning_GRSC6

08-25-2008, 12:17 AM

Who cares you know that will happen

Patriot93

08-25-2008, 12:19 AM

Yup good stuff. Hey dude I got a Tommy gun. Getting an M4 next.

Reconning_GRSC6

08-25-2008, 12:25 AM

really awesome it sucks in New Zealand that guns are ileagal

Patriot93

08-25-2008, 12:28 AM

Are you Serious!!!!! That sucks. California is trying to be like that. Thank God for the Second Amendment. However there is a loop hole in it unfortunatly. It says nothing about having ammo.

Patriot93

08-25-2008, 12:30 AM

Oh and Recon, this is kind of an interesting read

F-22 Raptor and Other Big-Budget Military Programs Reinvigorated

By David Crane
Defense Review
August 20, 2008

The recent dust-up in Georgia between Russian and Geogian forces, i.e. the Russian invasion of Georgia, has reinvigorated expensive, high-tech conventional-warfare/Cold-War-type weapons like the Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor low-observable/stealth fighter aircraft a.k.a. F/A-22 Raptor air-to-air (air-superiority fighter)/ground attack aircraft. The F-22, in particular has been receiving a lot of flak over the last few years, due to its estimated actual--and rather gargantuan--price tag of approximately $350 million ($350M) per aircraft and incremental cost (cost for each additional aircraft) of approx. $143M per, and it's nation-state-warfare (Cold-War-type/symmetric-warfare a.k.a. non-asymmetric-warfare) mission profile of Russian Sukhoi and MiG killer. After all, how applicable is the F-22 to the current Iraq and Afghanistan subnational conflicts (asymmetric/counterinsurgency warfare scenarios)? Not very.

However, "Vlad the assailer", as Neptunus Lex calls the Russians, has recently reinvigorated the F-22 and other big-money programs, including the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) low-observable/stealth fighter/ground-attack aircraft program. And, Russia's isn't the only powerful and potentially problematic military out there. What happens if we, all of a sudden, have a face-to-face showdown with China? China's got a large military with high-tech weaponry, including missiles and fighter aircraft, at its disposal. What if we have to go up against both China and Russia at the same time? What if they allie? Don't think it could happen? In World War II (WWII), we had to go up against an allied Germany, Japan and Italy (the Axis powers), when Germany and Japan had the most advanced and sophisticated military weapons (aircraft/planes, tanks, ground vehicles, infantry small arms, etc.) the world had ever seen up to that time.

At present, the U.S. military has a target production quota of approx. 183 aircraft for the F-22, down from an original quota of 700-800 aircraft, which then went to 442, then 381, and then, finally 183 aircraft. Since we've already spent untold billions of dollars over a roughly 25-year period (yep, that's right 25 YEARS!) to develop the thing (F-22), we might as well build enough of them to handle the worst-case symmetric warfare scenario (Russia + China simultaneously), particlarly since the per-unit cost is finally down to $143M. In Defense Review's opinion, the U.S. military should acquire at least 381--and perhaps as many as the original 700-800 planned--F-22s a.k.a. F/A22s for the U.S. Air Force in order to be better prepared for any/every possible nation-state confrontation, and to further reduce the per-unit cost. We should also at least consider selling F-22s to countries we trust implicitly, like England and Canada (and perhaps Israel).

Understand that the Air Force shouldn't just get a free lunch/ride. Part of the deal for getting double or more the present quota of F-22s should be that the Air Force and Navy have to relinquish their virtual monopoly/stranglehold on fixed-wing fighter and ground attack aircraft over the Army. It's DefenseReview's opinion that the U.S. Army should have it's own fleet of fixed-wing ground-attack and close-air-support (CAS) aircraft, just like the Marines. The Army's fixed-wing ****nal should include F-35s, A-10 Thunderbolt II "Warthogs", AC-130H/U Spectre/Spooky Gunships, and other ground-attack/CAS fixed-wing aircraft that they (Army) own and operate, themselves, so they can run their own ground attack/CAS/infantry-ground-support missions.

Part of the additional-F-22s-for-the-Air-Force deal should include putting the A-10 back into production in large numbers for all branches, so the Army, Marine Corps, Air Force, and even Navy all get brand new A-10s (and the Air Force, specifically, receives additional new-version A-10s). Northrop Grumman, current holder of the A-10 TDP (Technical Data Package), should also produce a good number of new-version (i.e. modernized) 2-seat OA-10B-type aircraft for all branches, the second seat carrying an attack observer/pilot who can act not only as a weapons specialist that can split tasks with the pilot, but also as an extra set of eyes so pilot is much less likely to fly into the ground or water while engaging in attack operations. These new 21-century OA-10Bs would not only be a good solution for ground-attack and CAS missions, but also for naval operations and the anti-sumbarine warfare (ASW/ASuW) role in particular. All newly-built, 21st-century A-10s should employ/deploy the latest-technology hardware (including engines), avionics (including "glass cockpits" instead of traditional gauges, HOTAS flight controls, helmet-mounted display and targeting, etc.), weapons systems (missiles, bombs, multi-spectral targeting pods, etc.). The navalized 2-seat "SeaHog" a.k.a. "Sea Hog" variant should obviously incorporate a new, more powerful engine, folding wings, tail hook, and any/all necessary ruggedization for carrier landings and takeoffs.

The Air Force's primary mission(s) should be air-superiority (air-to-air fighter combat and domination) and strategic and tactical bombing missions. Their secondary mission(s) should be supporting Army and Marine Corps ground attack and close-air-support missions as needed, after the Army and Marine Corps, together, officially take over these roles.

The Air Force and Navy will most likely hem and haw about being forced to give up its fixed-wing monopoloy over the Army, but they should be made to do so, anyway.

All of this would, of course, be dependent on the upcoming U.S. presidential elections. If John McCain wins, the U.S. military will most likely receive enough funding to be able to adequately prepare itself for any potential future military confrontation with Russia and/or China overseas, and the suggestions DefenseReview has made here will have a chance of actually happening. If Barack Obama wins, the U.S. military will most likely not receive the necessary funding to arm itself adequately for a potential future (conventional) showdown with either Russia or China overseas. As this is written, the latest Reuters/Zogby poll has McCain ahead by 5 points, so, at this particular moment, the U.S. military has a shot at getting what it needs for future nation-state wars.

Reconning_GRSC6

08-25-2008, 12:31 AM

Yea, I heard that you can get them but only farmers can and they are nothing compared to yours. Trust not having guns is stupid. And that is why im goning to USA Guns, Women and Alcohol and Go McCain. More planes = more Marines and more Marines = more dead insurgents

Patriot93

08-25-2008, 12:32 AM

The three great things of life http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Reconning_GRSC6

08-25-2008, 12:35 AM

Amen to that brother

Reconning_GRSC6

08-25-2008, 12:37 AM

Hey what would you rather own a tank or a jet

Patriot93

08-25-2008, 12:41 AM

Well I got a plane so I'll take a Tank. But I do love the F-22/F-35/ and F-18. That is a very tough choice. I don't know, I like flying so maybe I would take the jet. What would you take? Asuuming it's all payed for, gas, ammo, room to use it, etc. lol

Reconning_GRSC6

08-25-2008, 12:47 AM

Tank more fun more destructive. Hey you have a plane? What one is it

Patriot93

08-25-2008, 12:49 AM

It's my Dad's It's a King air Beechcraft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Air

Yeah I would take the Tank if I had room to run it and everthing like ammo even gas was payed for. then you need things to destroy.

Reconning_GRSC6

08-25-2008, 12:54 AM

Man you are loaded and BTW you dont need to look, see your neighbours house just use it for target practice

Well, you can just about guarantee that McCain is going to get the presidency now.... not only is Obama an idiot, but he doesn't have the entire US military wanting to back him..... that means a big deal (especially considering how much the big private corporations would get with an increased military budget!!! ).... which just makes me happy. Maybe within the next couple months we will get news of the Commanche program being resurrected.

Patriot93

08-25-2008, 01:33 AM

Hell yeah Azreal, you've got the right idea. Oh and Recon, I have heard of that movie. I want to see it.

Reconning_GRSC6

08-25-2008, 01:36 AM

Me too. Hey Azrael thats music to my ears man. I always prefered the Comanche over the Apache, that stealthy design is so hot.

AlphaDelta219

08-25-2008, 02:19 PM

stuff like this amkes me thank god that you ahve to be 18 to vote...

if we based policies on the ideas that things are hot we'd be ****ed from every different direction on everything.

and if you guys actually do join the military, send me proof and i will give you 100 bucks. Most kids who want to join the military and travel the world being badass usually end up not doing it.

Reconning_GRSC6

08-25-2008, 02:38 PM

Icant send you proof but I thought about joining since I was 5. It what I want to be, everyday I dream of being a Marine. Its my wish, I rather be a Marine serving in Iraq or Afganistan than become a billionaire living with supermodels that how much I want to be.

AlphaDelta219

08-25-2008, 03:07 PM

just wait a few years, itll probably change, it usually does.

Patriot93

08-25-2008, 04:27 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AlphaDelta219:
just wait a few years, itll probably change, it usually does. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

however, thats just your opininon....... Unless you know the person, you can't really talk for them.

AlphaDelta219

08-25-2008, 05:11 PM

ive seen dozens of people with the same idea, since an early age they wanted to join, then they get old and realize its not what they want.

as i said, it usually changes for those sorts of people. out of hte people i know that have joined the military, they either made the decision shortly before joining or many years before and became officers. but i have yet to see a single one of the "whole life wants to join the military" sort of people actually join up.

Patriot93

08-25-2008, 05:16 PM

well like I said, everyone is different. Besides, I only have like two and a half years before I go to Annapolis so I know I'm not changing my mind. Whatever though.

AlphaDelta219

08-25-2008, 05:17 PM

fshizzle, if you get into annapolis, congratulations would be in order and ill gladly put my foot in my mouth.

Patriot93

08-25-2008, 05:18 PM

Lol it's cool dude. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Reconning_GRSC6

08-25-2008, 10:52 PM

Man alpha like I said I cant show it to you since my desire to join the Marines is all in my heart

WhiteKnight77

08-26-2008, 01:28 AM

Room clearing is another term for CQB, after all, you clear a room.

I had a great laugh this year. For the past 7 months, I have been staying in a hotel just a short distance from Langley AFB (where my Pops was stationed in 72). Back then the 1st Tactical Fighter Wing (tail letters FF for Langley) were just getting F-15s and the first to do so. Now they 1st TFW is getting brand new F-22s, again the first to do so. The irony is that they very planes from Langely that wake me up most days now also woke me up when they took their first test flights back in 2005 at Lockheed Martin in Marietta Georgia, just outside my backdoor to my apartment.